Skip to main content

Supreme Court adding substance to the view: It's criminalizing dissent, says PUCL

By 
A Representative
Expressed “dismay” and “disappointment” over the the Supreme Court holding Prashant Bhushan, senior advocate, guilty of criminal contempt of court for a set of tweets, the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has said that the judgment will add substance to the view that, just like other democratic institutions, it too is criminalizing dissent, “acting in a manner which would silence democratic voices using the draconian power of contempt of court.”
Demanding the need for repealing the contempt law, PUCL in its statement, signed by Ravi Kiran Jain, president, and Dr V Suresh, general secretary, said, Prashant Bhushan is not the first person to raise critical questions about the administration of justice in the Supreme Court.
It recalled how on January 12, 2018, addressing media, four sitting Supreme Court judges -- Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph – declared their disagreement with the then Chief Justice of India over functioning of the judicial institution both in its administrative as also judicial sphere of functioning.
The four judges had said, “There have been instances where case having far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution had been assigned by the chief justices of this court selectively to the benches ‘of their preference’ without any rational basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs.”
Also noting that how some prominent citizens, including former judges Madan Lokur (Supreme Court) and AP Shah (former chief justice, Delhi High Court), had questioned the apex court’s reluctance to play its role to check the governmental excesses for “averting the migrant crisis during the lockdown”, PUCL regretted, it has failed to act in protecting citizens from “abuse” of anti-sedition law and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) by the Central government.
Against this backdrop, PUCL asserted, “The conviction of Prashant Bhushan for criminal contempt of court for the tweets will only reinforce the view that the Supreme Court will not allow any public questioning or criticism of its functioning and is not averse to using contempt laws to silence voices seeking transparency and accountability of the judiciary.”

Comments

TRENDING

Xi Jinping’s visit to USA: Recognition that China can't be contained?

By Vijay Prashad   President Xi Jinping’s forthcoming visit to the United States must be understood as more than an encounter between two heads of state, but it must be seen as an encounter between two possible futures. In one future, the United States imposes a spiral of confrontation against China. Trade disputes harden into economic warfare, then economic warfare intensifies into technological blockades, technological blockades produce military encirclement, and finally military encirclement creates incidents, and incidents the danger of becoming an unimaginable war.

Swaminarayan, untouchability and the 'we are not Hindu' argument

By Rajiv Shah   Following my blog on why the Eiffel Tower authorities should take all the blame for giving in to the Swaminarayan sadhus ’ bizarre demand to “invisibilise” women, including its female staff, during their visit to the internationally renowned Paris tourist centre on September 5, an interesting comment by one of the top academics drew my attention to something I vaguely knew about one of India’s most powerful and richest religious sects.

From margins to microphones: The rise of Dalit hip-hop in India

By Tersina Maria Toppo*  A protest does not always arrive as a slogan shouted from a street corner. Sometimes, it arrives on a beat. A microphone replaces the megaphone, a music video becomes a public square, and the smartphone becomes the space where a history once pushed to the margins is narrated, debated, and shared.